Habeas; Due Process; Whether Practice Book (2009) §§ 23-41 and 23-42 are
Unconstitutional in that They Permit a Court to Dismiss a Habeas Petition
Without an Evidentiary Hearing. The
petitioner was convicted on a guilty plea of murder. He filed several habeas
petitions alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and
that his guilty plea was not voluntary. The petitioner's attorney sought to
withdraw from the cases pursuant to Practice Book (2009) § 23-41 (a), which provides
that when appointed habeas counsel "after conscientious investigation and
examination of the case" concludes that the case is "wholly
frivolous," counsel shall advise the court by filing a motion to withdraw.
Subsection (b) of § 23-41 provided the petitioner an opportunity to respond in
writing to the motion to withdraw, and he filed a twenty-three page memorandum
in opposition, asserting that his claims were not frivolous. The habeas court
granted counsel's motion to withdraw and dismissed the habeas petitions pursuant
to Practice Book (2009) § 23-42 (a), which provides that, if the court finds that
the case is "wholly without merit," it should allow counsel to withdraw
and consider whether to dismiss the habeas petition. The petitioner appealed,
claiming that Practice Book (2009) §§ 23-41 and 23-42 are unconstitutional
insofar as they permit a habeas court to dismiss a habeas petition without a
full evidentiary hearing. The Appellate Court (134 Conn. App. 405) disagreed
and, applying the three-factor balancing test for evaluating procedural due
process claims set out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
(1976), concluded that the Practice Book provisions, as applied to the
petitioner, did not violate his procedural due process rights under the federal
constitution. It reasoned that the procedural safeguards set forth in §§ 23-41
and 23-42—including the opportunity to rebut in writing an attorney's conclusion
that a petitioner's claims are frivolous—protected the petitioner against an unreasonable
risk of an erroneous deprivation of his liberty. It also determined that,
although the state has an interest in the proper adjudication of a habeas
petitioner's claims, the imposition of additional procedural safeguards that
would require the state to litigate a case that had been judicially determined
to be wholly without merit would be of little value and place an unnecessary
burden on the state. The Supreme Court will now consider whether the Appellate
Court properly concluded that the habeas court correctly dismissed the habeas
petitions without an evidentiary hearing.